EAST TEXAS HOG DOGGERS FORUM

October 4, 2009
Below is a link to the court ruling and comments from the president of
Louisville Kennel Club Donna Herzig and Barbara Haines with the LKC and
miscellaneous other posts.  This requires further study by our attorneys to
see how it can be used regarding our Texas laws.

http://tinyurl.com/ydfhwv3

http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/6503560/1187908967/name/Order%20and%20Memorandum%20and%20Opinion.pdf%3E

"Permission to cross-post."
Tina Perriguey wrote,
I'm on the phone with Barbara Haines, Louisville Kennel Club. We've been
waiting for this decision for almost a year, but it was worth the wait.

This ruling by a federal judge (an esteemed Constitutional scholar) is a
profound victory.
This precedent has far-reaching implications, and sets the stage for
class-action lawsuits nationwide - anywhere similar ordinances have been
enacted, and Constitutional rights of pet owners have been violated

Highlights of the FEDERAL ruling:

1. Pets are personal property, under the Constitution. Due process, search
and seizure, etc.. (all protections provided by Constitution) apply to pets.
You are the OWNER of your pets (not the "guardian.")
2. Requirements for housing, treatment, etc.. cannot be mandated by
legislation to be different for intact dogs (vs. altered dogs.).
3. Seizure bond is FLAT-OUT illegal and unconstitutional. This practice
constitutes unlawful taking of personal property. If, after search warrant
is obtained, a person is arrested and their dogs are seized, their dogs
must be held AS IS (cannot be sterilized while held, cannot be sold,
"transferred" or euthanized) unless the owner is found guilty after trial.
Meantime, owner DOES NOT have to pay a dime for their care, until/unless
they are found guilty of the charges

--- Forwarded message ---
From:   "Donna Herzig"
>This is a great decision. Judge Simpson found that the determination
between altered and unaltered dogs is without merit and therefore the
requirement of inspection of enclosures for unaltered dogs is
unconstitutional, He additionally found that dogs are personal property
and the requirement of a seizure bond where you must post a bond upon a
showing of probable cause and if you cannot post the bond your animals
become the property of the state, city etc. is unconstitutional and a
finding of guilt must occur before a court can take your property. The
judge issued an injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing these
provisions. With respect to the Fourth Amendment issue the Court dismissed
it because the city agreed with us. However, the Court spent a lot of time
discussing the Fourth Amendment and stated that notwithstanding the
ordinance seeming to allow for seizure without a warrant for tethering
violations, for some cruelty issues and for any violation of the ordinance
(a provision used by Meloche to seize animals for violations of his alleged
Class A requirements) the Court reasoned that no ordinance provision
nullifies a warrant requirement so as to those seizures LMAS must obtain a
warrant prior to seizure. Moreover, while the Court did not strike down
many of the definitions, it could have just left it at that. Instead the
Court went point by point and clarified the statute as to what was
permissible and what wasn't . Notwithstanding the story in the "Courageless
Journal"- I am not sure that they read the same opinion, we had a major
victory on the issues that matter on a national basis. Please read it a
few times, it gets better with age. While Judge Simpson did not deal with
the state issue, the veterinary issue which was the most important one, was
addressed by a change in the state law which makes veterinary records
confidential and does not permit release of them unless a court order issued
or the owner gives consent in writing. Since we prevailed on our Sec. 1983
issues, Jon will file next week for attorney's fees which are mandatory
under the statute. We are hopeful that we will receive a substantial
reimbursement.
Donna Herzig


----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Prager"
> It is not a binding precedent on the other federal district courts, but it
> does have value in influencing their decisions in similar cases.  The only
> way the decision would be binding throughout the U.S.is for an appeal to
> go all the way to the Supreme Court and for them to sustain the judgement.
>

"Steve" wrote,
No, it does not set a precedent for the entire country, only for the
district where the court has jurisdiction. In cases in other Federal Court
Districts, this ruling can be mentioned as a reference (or whatever lawyers
call it), but it does not have any more force than that. It is true,
however, that other Federal District Courts can follow this ruling when
making their own ruling. The only court that can set national precedents is
the Supreme Court of the United States.